Not really necessary, but yes, to be on the safe side I would do a reset prior to running Audyssey at brother's place.

thanks i will do a reset to be safe. i forgot to mention he has a new sony 4k tv.

will that 1712 work his 4k tv? i think the 1712 is pass through so if he connects a ps3 and blu ray player it will show 1080p correctly and satelite cable direct tv 1080i correctly? ive read using 1080p or 1080i sources will look blurry on a 4k tv. i tried to tell him not to buy a 4k tv so soon.

The articles I linked to show very clearly that speaker designers can, and do, take room modes (which are caused by reflections of course) into account when designing certain designs. Those designs are designed with nulls which are intended to minimise those same reflections.

If something like this happens they are not designed for, they are mis-designed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701

This is very clear in the Linkwitz and hifizine articles. It isn't all that unusual - many designs are intended, for example, to be placed close to room boundaries: the designer knows that this is the likely placement for the speaker he is designing and he takes that into account when shaping the frequency response.

This is designing for the boundary gain, not room modes

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701

Googling Roy Alllison will yield further information on that. I have even owned open baffle speaker designs myself in the past, which again were specifically designed around real-world room factors.

Open baffle / dipole doesn't really work for low frequencies, or the baffle should be really large (and room is much much larger to be able to fit such speaker). So, in any practical circumstances open baffle is a controlled directivity design than avoids mid-high frequency reflections from the side walls, not a modal problem also.

I started some of this discussion/controversy a couple of pages back in responding to a question about the "pure clean sound" of the speakers. And I was saying that it was almost impossible to know what that was, as the room, set-up, etc. exerted so much influence on the sound. I think this discussion is relevant to Audyssey, so I'd like to take a crack at why I think it's important to clarify what I, and perhaps a couple of others, have been trying to say.

I originally used the term "room modes" too loosely and corrected myself in a subsequent post, referring instead to speaker/room interaction. Igor Zep's post above: "This is designing for the boundary gain, not room modes" is the same reason I preferred the phrase speaker/ room interaction. I was referring primarily to boundary gain. The fact that some speakers are specifically designed to benefit from boundary gain is undeniable. If you don't believe that, try pulling your subwoofer(s) out into the middle of the room and listen to how it sounds. Where did my bass go, indeed? In fact, the most common, virtually universal, advice on subwoofer placement is near (1'-2'?), but not too near a wall. Of course, the speaker manufacturer can't know your specific room dimensions or volume, or where you have nulls, although many do try to help those issues in their designs. For instance, they may offer different sizes of subwoofers with different power amps, and they may offer different porting options. Most of us understand that larger rooms, or the desire to run our systems at very high volumes, require larger more powerful speakers. The manufacturer's give us different models and it's up to us to try to match them intelligently with our rooms. That was a point I was trying to make in my original posts.

But I think it's also important to understand that not all speakers are designed to use boundary gain in the way that subwoofers and many direct radiating speakers are. I used the example of planar speakers--large electrostatic panels such as Magnepan or Martin Logan. I believe I have seen owners of both speakers post on this thread. Those large thin panels are specifically designed not to be placed close to boundary walls. I believe the placement recommendations I remember seeing on the really large panels (73" and up) is a minimum of 3'-4' from a wall. A friend of mine, who owns an audio store, and who has sold Magnepans for 40 years, places his large panels 6' from a wall in his private listening room. Again, try that with a direct radiating speaker and see what it does to the bass. But the Magnepans sound great that way. They aren't really designed to go as deep as comparably large direct radiating speakers, and they aren't so dependent on boundary gain in order to optimize their performance. Those are examples of completely different technologies with completely different strategies with respect to room interaction. Does the manufacturer need to know the specifics of our room sizes, dimensions, or configurations in order to design speakers intended to generally work with rooms in a particular way? In these two cases: near a boundary wall, versus well away from a boundary wall. Well, obviously not from those two examples. But if we want to derive the maximum benefit from our audio systems, it's something we might want to give some thought to.

The relevance to Audyssey is equally obvious. The set-up guide, and the long-term subscribers to this thread advise people coming here for advice to be very diligent in their speaker placement, prior to running Audyssey. We can't expect Audyssey to correct all of our fundamental placement mistakes, or compensate for inherently inadequate amplifier power, or speaker capability. So, we bear some responsibility to understand the design intent of our speakers; follow the suggested protocols where we can regarding speaker placement, whether it's close to or well away from boundary walls; observe appropriate toe-in (or not) recommendations; in some cases tilt-up or down for maximum tweeter directionality (think height or rear surround speakers, for instance); consider power requirements vis-a-vis distance to MLP, and so on, to optimize our performance. Typically, we will have to experiment a bit, which is one of the first pieces of advice usually given, often after a request for photos of the room.

From the beginning, the point of all this to me has been the importance of trying to understand the specific design goals and capabilities of our systems, to maximize those capabilities generally in accordance with manufacturer recommendations, and then to apply Audyssey in a similar fashion. Again, the typical advice is to apply Audyssey as methodically and diligently as we can, in accordance with manufacturer recommendations, and then to experiment, if we wish, from that "reference" standpoint. In my experience, it is an iterative process. Studying Audyssey makes me want to understand the rest of my audio system better. Then, as I experiment with my speaker arrangement, or bass traps, or whatever, I re-run Audyssey and achieve ever better results. But it all starts with the appropriate applications of all system components, including speakers, in a way that is consistent with the original design intent.

The fact that some speakers are specifically designed to benefit from boundary gain is undeniable. If you don't believe that, try pulling your subwoofer(s) out into the middle of the room and listen to how it sounds.

Some do, like on-the-wall surrounds, in-wall speakers, etc. But not subwoofers. They are not "designed for" (the boundary gain) they are just lacking power, and so are useless in other conditions. There is no Goal or Intent to put them there... There is just a problem/limitation/flaw we need to workaround. Saying that they are "designed for" is like saying that refrigerators are designed for... room heating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mthomas47

I used the example of planar speakers--large electrostatic panels such as Magnepan or Martin Logan. I believe I have seen owners of both speakers post on this thread. Those large thin panels are specifically designed not to be placed close to boundary walls.

They are not designed for it. They are designed this way for completely different reasons. It is just a fundamental flaw of the design that they do not work well if put close to walls, not the goal set by the designer.

Some do, like on-the-wall surrounds, in-wall speakers, etc. But not subwoofers. They are not "designed for" (the boundary gain) they are just lacking power, and so are useless in other conditions. There is no Goal or Intent to put them there... There is just a problem/limitation/flaw we need to workaround. Saying that they are "designed for" is like saying that refrigerators are designed for... room heating.

They are not designed for it. They are designed this way for completely different reasons. It is just a fundamental flaw of the design that they do not work well if put close to walls, not the goal set by the designer.

You really mess 'designed for' with 'not designed for'.

I understand your first point perfectly. Using subwoofers as an example of speakers which benefit from room gain was simply easier than referring to other types of speakers designed for room gain, such as my vintage Bozak Concert Grands. It was easier, although less precise, since virtually everyone on this thread has subwoofers and can quickly grasp the way in which they benefit from boundary gain.

With respect to your second point, electrostatic panels are not designed to be placed near walls and are not specifically designed to benefit from boundary gain. They are, therefore, an excellent way to demonstrate the difference between designing for boundary gain versus not. I don't know that I would necessarily call it a design flaw, since the designers simply didn't consider boundary gain particularly important. Nor, to be fair, should I call the lack of boundary gain a design goal, either. But for purposes of clarifying the discussion of different speakers having different capabilities, consistent with designer intentions, I think it was a permissible liberty.

Of course, I certainly respect your interest in exactitude, and with your help, I believe the matter has been clarified.

I know its pretty universal to set crossovers after running Audyssey EQ to 80Hz.
Who runs say higher 90Hz, 100Hz, if so what are "your" reasons for doing so?

I run my crossovers at 100Hz on the mains and 110 or 120 on the surrounds. My mains are M& S150s and my subwoofers are dual Seaton Submersive F2s.

If you accept the usual reasons and benefits for crossing over to subs in the first place, which I assume you do, then it becomes a question of will you do better if you cross over slightly higher, thus relieving even more strain on your other speakers and your amplifiers. Remember that the speakers and amps start to have to work their socks off as frequency drops and SPLs rise.

In my case, although I have very powerful amps and my speakers are THX certifed so they are designed to roll off at ~80Hz, I also have immensely capable subs which can easily handle the ~100Hz asked of them. So, for me, there is no downside - I am taking strain off the mains and amps and the subs can easily handle what I am asking of them.

The only other issue is localisation of the bass and I have no issues with that - either because I am one of the people who doesn’t localise bass at 100Hz or because of something in my room setup that means I can't localise the subs.

And finally, Mark Seaton, of Seaton Sound, suggested I cross over my M&K S150s at 100Hz, as he has direct experience of those speakers being used with his subs and he has found that they invariably benefit from the higher XO.

It is something that you can easily experiment with yourself. If you hear no downsides with XOs of 100Hz then I would recommend it. Even if you hear no benefits either, you are still giving your mains and amps an easier ride, which has to a benefit.

I know its pretty universal to set crossovers after running Audyssey EQ to 80Hz.
Who runs say higher 90Hz, 100Hz, if so what are "your" reasons for doing so?

Keith, as usual, gave excellent reasons for raising crossovers. I actually have another one as well. My AVR recognizes my center channel's -3db point as 60hz, but I raise it all the way to 110 because I think it sounds better that way. I started with it at the standard recommendation of 80, but voices always sounded a little "chesty" somehow with that particular speaker, so I experimented, and finally settled on 110. Through many Audyssey runs, it has always been recognized at 60hz, and I have always, after re-experimenting, settled on 110. The differences are subtle, but most of us here are into subtle differences.

Keith, as usual, gave excellent reasons for raising crossovers. I actually have another one as well. My AVR recognizes my center channel's -3db point as 60hz, but I raise it all the way to 110 because I think it sounds better that way. I started with it at the standard recommendation of 80, but voices always sounded a little "chesty" somehow with that particular speaker, so I experimented, and finally settled on 110. Through many Audyssey runs, it has always been recognized at 60hz, and I have always, after re-experimenting, settled on 110. The differences are subtle, but most of us here are into subtle differences.

Absolutely. My unit often often recommends 60Hz XOs for me too, after an Audyssey Pro calibration, but I always raise them to 100Hz. An automated process has to settle on some figure and they settle on the -3dB point, which seems reasonable. But there is no reason to slavishly follow that precept and, as you say, there can be audible benefits in not doing so. Personally, I didn't have any significant audible benefits from raising them (or if I did they were so subtle as to be immaterial to me) but I did it anyway, because -- most importantly -- there were no significant drawbacks. So I benefit from taking some of the strain off the speakers and amps by passing the 'heavy lifting' to my very capable subs. Win-win.

I recommend everyone tries it. If they can't hear any downside, then raising the XOs will bring benefits (assuming capable subs are in place, but most decent subs should handle 100Hz with no worries).

I know its pretty universal to set crossovers after running Audyssey EQ to 80Hz.
Who runs say higher 90Hz, 100Hz, if so what are "your" reasons for doing so?

I know mine is not a typical situation, but I have five identical Niles Audio ceiling speakers paired with a very capable SVS PB-2000 sub. It was suggested to me quite a while back that I should raise the crossover to at least 100Hz due to a boundary effect caused by my speakers being mounted flush with the ceiling. Chris from Audyssey agreed with this advice, and I have enjoyed how it sounds ever since.

Fantastic news from you Keith and others, Im so happy to hear this news!!!!! I have for almost three years hated the shrillness of the speech on my Klipsch THX horn speakers, I have always crossed all of my 11.2 setup at the so called recommended 80Hz THX. I finally experimented with raising all to 90Hz and warmth arrived like magic! Now Im going to try 100Hz and get even more warmth. I have four SVS PB-13 ULTRAS up front so I have heaps of good sub to carry the higher crossover.

Fantastic news from you Keith and others, Im so happy to hear this news!!!!! I have for almost three years hated the shrillness of the speech on my Klipsch THX horn speakers, I have always crossed all of my 11.2 setup at the so called recommended 80Hz THX. I finally experimented with raising all to 90Hz and warmth arrived like magic! Now Im going to try 100Hz and get even more warmth. I have four SVS PB-13 ULTRAS up front so I have heaps of good sub to carry the higher crossover.

Good on ya, mate As I say, it can do no harm to experiment and then listen... those subs will handle 100Hz with no problems at all.

I know mine is not a typical situation, but I have five identical Niles Audio ceiling speakers paired with a very capable SVS PB-2000 sub. It was suggested to me quite a while back that I should raise the crossover to at least 100Hz due to a boundary effect caused by my speakers being mounted flush with the ceiling. Chris from Audyssey agreed with this advice, and I have enjoyed how it sounds ever since.

All my speakers except the three fronts are in ceiling Klipsch THX. I wonder what are the causes of being an in ceiling speaker, plus installed against a boundary that they suggest to raise the crossover in this situation?

I'm getting an Onkyo TX-NR929 receiver with Audyssey XT32.
My setup will be in a smaller size room.
With the sofa (main seating location) up against the back wall, where do I place the microphone to get the 7th and 8th position measurements?

Congratulations on your new receiver I have the Onkyo TX-NR818 running 9.1 channels with an external amp. The 929 can do 11.2 channels with an external amp. I really like my receiver. Its easy to operate, has a ton of features, and sounds great. One thing I would suggest is to get an extended warranty if you can, it seems the problems with Onkyo's HDMI boards haven't been fixed. I would recommend Square Trade, you can get an extra year of coverage for 3 years total, and if you need to ship the unit in for repairs anytime in those 3 years SquareTrade will cover the shipping charges.

All my speakers except the three fronts are in ceiling Klipsch THX. I wonder what are the causes of being an in ceiling speaker, plus installed against a boundary that they suggest to raise the crossover in this situation?

Here was the original response to my question about higher crossovers with in-ceiling speakers (this was after my receiver set my crossover at 40 Hz after running Audyssey): "The boundary effect from being flush with the ceiling is no doubt the reason they were "detected" at 40Hz crossover."

Here is Chris from Audyssey's response to the same question: "It's true that the proximity to the wall can lower the measured roll off of the speaker. 100 Hz is a good recommendation for ceiling speakers considering the size of the woofers. The bass below that will be sent to the sub where it will be better corrected by the MultEQ XT filters."

Sorry if this has been covered before, but after tweeking PLIIx options on my Integra 80.3 and then switching on Audyssey's DSX to add the wides, the settings I had for the PLIIx seemed to change dramatically. My questions: Is DSX + PLIIx a specific setting of its own? Does DSX + PLIIx override the settings made for PLIIx alone?

This doesn't really seem like an Audyssey question per se, but more a question about your Integra. Can you be more specific? What "options" or "settings" are you referring to specifically? Generally the only options for PLII are in the "Music" modes where you can adjust center width, dimension, etc. Is that what you are talking about? AFAIK there are no adjustible PLII settings for Cinema mode.

Sorry if this has been covered before, but after tweeking PLIIx options on my Integra 80.3 and then switching on Audyssey's DSX to add the wides, the settings I had for the PLIIx seemed to change dramatically. My questions: Is DSX + PLIIx a specific setting of its own? Does DSX + PLIIx override the settings made for PLIIx alone?

DSX+PLIIx will add wides and/or heights to the mix, so it's conceivable that this could change the settings for source width (or whatever it's called) in the PLIIx settings. Does it change back again when you cancel DSX and revert to plain PLIIx?

Yes, my PLIIX Music settings seems to return when I select PLIIx Music only, without DSX for width. After making some changes to PLIIx music mode and then turning on DSX, I was expecting just the wides to be added to what I had just adjusted, but the overall sound changed ... so I assume PLIIx/DSX is a specific setting. Was just trying to determine if that's a correct assumption.

Yes, my PLIIX Music settings seems to return when I select PLIIx Music only, without DSX for width. After making some changes to PLIIx music mode and then turning on DSX, I was expecting just the wides to be added to what I had just adjusted, but the overall sound changed ... so I assume PLIIx/DSX is a specific setting. Was just trying to determine if that's a correct assumption.

I think so. Any setting in PLIIx which affected the broadness of the image would need to be turned off if wide speakers were being used, I would think. The overall sound would of course change if you added in wide and/or height speakers, as DSX is intended to.

Thanks for the reply. It was actually the "dimension" aspect of PLIIx music that seemed to change - the surround level, which I was attempting to pull back on a bit in my new setting, went back to full on level again when adding DSX. Having read that DSX does do something with the surrounds in movie mode to help blend with the wides, I assumed it must do something in music mode too. Too bad though. Maybe a future version of it can allow the PLIIx settings to remain when adding the wides.

I agree. Bozak Concert Grands would look so odd out in the middle of the room, that, surely, they would have voiced them to sound good against a wall. Also, when they were designed, virtually nobody put their speakers out in a room.

The most obvious case of a manufacturer depending on room boundries when designing a speaker would be Klipsch, in designing the Klipschorn. It absolutely needs to be in a room corner or in an artificial corner. Klipsch has a special revolving door quasi-anechoic chamber with a trihedral wooden corner built in, along with a bit of a ceiling. Some EV models also benefit from being in a corner.

I would expect Audyssey to work more gracefully with a Khorn in a corner than having to boost certain ranges of the bass incredibly if a Khorn were to be placed anywhere else.

Thanks for the reply. It was actually the "dimension" aspect of PLIIx music that seemed to change - the surround level, which I was attempting to pull back on a bit in my new setting, went back to full on level again when adding DSX. Having read that DSX does do something with the surrounds in movie mode to help blend with the wides, I assumed it must do something in music mode too. Too bad though. Maybe a future version of it can allow the PLIIx settings to remain when adding the wides.

I am fairly sure it has been arranged this way deliberately. PLIIx allows you to change the sound with this dimension control. DSX allows you to change the sound with DSX processing to wides and heights. It probably isn’t a good idea to add them both together, hence the reason the AVR temporarily cancels your dimension setting when you switch to DSX. DSX does, as you say, decorrelate the surrounds and reduces their level by 3dB. Why it does this is a mystery - IMO it makes the whole soundstage way too frontcentric. I gave up on DSX for precisely that reason.

If your unit has DTS Neo:X you might find you prefer the way that that handles the upmixing to the wides and heights - and it may leave the PLIIx processing intact wrt to the dimension control. Worth a shot.

I agree. Bozak Concert Grands would look so odd out in the middle of the room, that, surely, they would have voiced them to sound good against a wall. Also, when they were designed, virtually nobody put their speakers out in a room.

The most obvious case of a manufacturer depending on room boundries when designing a speaker would be Klipsch, in designing the Klipschorn. It absolutely needs to be in a room corner or in an artificial corner. Klipsch has a special revolving door quasi-anechoic chamber with a trihedral wooden corner built in, along with a bit of a ceiling. Some EV models also benefit from being in a corner.

Quite. The Klipsch example is a perfect example of how speakers can be, and are, designed to take into account the room. There is no need at all for the speaker designer to 'know the particular room', as has been mistakenly stated in the thread, and the example you give is absolute proof of that.